Talk:Science

Mofdifications

I put here the reasons for some changes.

• I deleted all the paragraphs, which are refering to supernatural. The text stated that science is not able to examine supernatural phenomena. But this statement presupposes that there are such phenomena.
• I also deleted all reference that science can not examine "what is". Science is of course not a kind of fundamentalist realism. But actually the realism debate is not a scientific issue. We must formulate science in a way, which is devoid of such ideologic debates.
• I also modified the parts, which describe the negative effects of science. I made it clearer that science is only a tool. The tool can be used ina good or bad way. This is not a scientific issue.

--Matthias Brendel 06:13, 30 November 2006 (CST)

RE

• I also modified the parts, which describe the negative effects of science. I made it clearer that science is only a tool. The tool can be used ina good or bad way. This is not a scientific issue.

Perhaps a link to articles in Economics and Politics where such discussions are relevant may be useful for a variety of reasons David Tribe 16:11, 7 February 2007 (CST)

Introduction

I'm not quite sure I agree with the wording in the introduction (nor the definition). My definition of science is closer to knowledge gathered with the scientific method. Where mathematics can be considered a tool used in science, but not science, since it is derived from something that is not a fact (axioms).

The reason I mostly disagree with the presentation of the topic is that it is too broad, it would include pseudoscientific concepts; Since even pseudoscience would be included in the definition ("logically organized system of knowledge attained by some logical vindication" and "confirmation by empirical observations"). And pseudoscience is literally speaking 'not-science'. Benjamin Ingberg 18:12, 25 June 2008 (CDT)